Next-Gen hardware power

[nigelhere9901]

I dont get how someone can get this wrong:

 

 

Sony is building its CPU on what it's calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set, including extra debugging support that is not available on PC platforms. This system will also give developers more direct access to the shader pipeline than they had on the PS3 or through DirectX itself. "This is access you're not used to getting on the PC, and as a result you can do a lot more cool things and have a lot more access to the power of the system," Norden said. A low-level API will also let coders talk directly with the hardware in a way that's "much lower-level than DirectX and OpenGL," but still not quite at the driver level.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/sony...eatures-at-gdc/

I actually read the article. I think it's not true, Sony would go the traditional way, using the LibGCM for PS4. It would be atrocious for Sony to go for DirectX graphics API. Also if you're wondering, you can have tessellation and all that sh*t available on PC WITHOUT DirectX, it all depends on the Shader Model.

[iNero]

 

I dont get how someone can get this wrong:

 

 

Sony is building its CPU on what it's calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set, including extra debugging support that is not available on PC platforms. This system will also give developers more direct access to the shader pipeline than they had on the PS3 or through DirectX itself. "This is access you're not used to getting on the PC, and as a result you can do a lot more cool things and have a lot more access to the power of the system," Norden said. A low-level API will also let coders talk directly with the hardware in a way that's "much lower-level than DirectX and OpenGL," but still not quite at the driver level.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/sony...eatures-at-gdc/

I actually read the article. I think it's not true, Sony would go the traditional way, using the LibGCM for PS4. It would be atrocious for Sony to go for DirectX graphics API. Also if you're wondering, you can have tessellation and all that sh*t available on PC WITHOUT DirectX, it all depends on the Shader Model.

Yea, you dont like it so its not true

although its even sated by Sony's senior staff engineer in both articles

Edited June 1, 2013 by iNero

[nigelhere9901]

I dont get how someone can get this wrong:

 

 

Sony is building its CPU on what it's calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set, including extra debugging support that is not available on PC platforms. This system will also give developers more direct access to the shader pipeline than they had on the PS3 or through DirectX itself. "This is access you're not used to getting on the PC, and as a result you can do a lot more cool things and have a lot more access to the power of the system," Norden said. A low-level API will also let coders talk directly with the hardware in a way that's "much lower-level than DirectX and OpenGL," but still not quite at the driver level.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/sony...eatures-at-gdc/

I actually read the article. I think it's not true, Sony would go the traditional way, using the LibGCM for PS4. It would be atrocious for Sony to go for DirectX graphics API. Also if you're wondering, you can have tessellation and all that sh*t available on PC WITHOUT DirectX, it all depends on the Shader Model.

Yea, you dont like it so its not true

although its even sated by Sony's senior staff engineer in both articles

Welp, more issues for the PS4 console I guess.

[NYC PATROL]

IDK a lot of that technical jargon but the PS4 sounds like it will be just fine haha

[Andreas]

 

Everything is compared to the most mediocre PC possible.

If that makes you sleep at night.... everything is explained in OP and they compared them with gaming PCs.

The PlayStation 4 and perhaps the Xbox One too are superior compared to a comparable PC; that means the system specifications of the PC are fairly the same as the ones of the consoles.

 

It's not exactly fair to compare the platforms of the next-generations consoles to the one of the PC but on the other hand, it is. There is one thing that all consoles that were ever built and are going to be built in the future share: the system specifications barely change in the course of a console cycle. Videogame developers clearly benefit from it because they can develope their games for platforms whose hardware never change. That is one of the advantages [but you can also see it as a disadvantage] of the consoles compared to the PC platform. If you are developing a game for PC, then you have to consider all possible combinations of hardware. There are hundreds, hell even thousands of combinations of processors, graphic-cards, RAM and the list goes on. But you also have to consider the fact that the PS4's and Xbox One's platforms are based on the x86-architecture which makes them closer to a PC than any console ever was. As you know, there is one thing that the PlayStation 4 is doing better than the Microsoft counterpart and even the PC: the fact that it uses GDDR5 RAM and the fact that the system RAM and VRAM are not seperate.

 

Not only the hardware is what really matters but the software and the optimization of the software play a big role as well! If you compare games that were released at the start of the console generation [PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360] with the ones that were released in the last couple of years, you will notice a substantial difference; the software improved over the years and the most recent games show the full potencial of the PS3 and X360. You can expect the exact same thing with the forthcoming console generation. If you are disappointed with what you have seen so far, then wait for a few years and I promise you that future games will be graphically [far] superior.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[DODI3OG]

IDK a lot of that technical jargon but the PS4 sounds like it will be just fine haha

I'm sure it will open up more possibilities this generation didn't even touch.

Like great graphics, gigantic maps with huge amount of details combined.

 

It will fill the gaps that prevented this game from achieving this.

With 14x more RAM, we will have a map much bigger than GTA V's w/c may probably be set at a revamped VC.

And most surprisingly, at the end of this generation, we might just get the entire SA, including the recent VC, and LC maps combined.

[NYC PATROL]

IDK a lot of that technical jargon but the PS4 sounds like it will be just fine haha 

I'm sure it will open up more possibilities this generation didn't even touch.

Like great graphics, gigantic maps with huge amount of details combined.

 

It will fill the gaps that prevented this game from achieving this.

With 14x more RAM, we will have a map much bigger than GTA V's w/c may probably be set at a revamped VC.

And most surprisingly, at the end of this generation, we might just get the entire SA, including the recent VC, and LC maps combined.

Yeah RAM is like the only thing I understand fully haha. It's going to do great things for XB1

and PS4. More objects on screen without sacrificing frame rate and graphics fidelity. Oh my...

Can't wait.

[iNero]

 

Everything is compared to the most mediocre PC possible.

If that makes you sleep at night.... everything is explained in OP and they compared them with gaming PCs.

The PlayStation 4 and perhaps the Xbox One too are superior compared to a comparable PC; that means the system specifications of the PC are fairly the same as the ones of the consoles.

 

It's not exactly fair to compare the platforms of the next-generations consoles to the one of the PC but on the other hand, it is. There is one thing that all consoles that were ever built and are going to be built in the future share: the system specifications barely change in the course of a console cycle. Videogame developers clearly benefit from it because they can develope their games for platforms whose hardware never change. That is one of the advantages [but you can also see it as a disadvantage] of the consoles compared to the PC platform. If you are developing a game for PC, then you have to consider all possible combinations of hardware. There are hundreds, hell even thousands of combinations of processors, graphic-cards, RAM and the list goes on. But you also have to consider the fact that the PS4's and Xbox One's platforms are based on the x86-architecture which makes them closer to a PC than any console ever was. As you know, there is one thing that the PlayStation 4 is doing better than the Microsoft counterpart and even the PC: the fact that it uses GDDR5 RAM and the fact that the system RAM and VRAM are not seperate.

 

Not only the hardware is what really matters but the software and the optimization of the software play a big role as well! If you compare games that were released at the start of the console generation [PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360] with the ones that were released in the last couple of years, you will notice a substantial difference; the software improved over the years and the most recent games show the full potencial of the PS3 and X360. You can expect the exact same thing with the forthcoming console generation. If you are disappointed with what you have seen so far, then wait for a few years and I promise you that future games will be graphically [far] superior.

That is almost exactly what these Articles are mentioning ( a little part of it).

 

And that exactly is the reason on ehat this statement of the Tech Site is based on:

 

 

Likewise, games will probably look better on consoles for a few years, and then PCs will probably pull back ahead.

 

The latest Link about the advanced DX11.1 support for the PS4 supports this statement in a certain way

 

And they obviously compare it to an equal Gaming PC. Why would you compare it with a office PC which has no tech for serious gaming at all.

 

Edited June 1, 2013 by iNero

[Andreas]

 

I'm sure it will open up more possibilities this generation didn't even touch.

Like great graphics, gigantic maps with huge amount of details combined.

 

It will fill the gaps that prevented this game from achieving this.

With 14x more RAM, we will have a map much bigger than GTA V's w/c may probably be set at a revamped VC.

The details of videogames will obviously increase with the start of the new console cycle but I wouldn't expect significantly bigger maps. That is a fallacy, and a lot of people think that way for whatever reason. The map size is not limited by the hardware. In fact, the current consoles are very well capable of huge maps, even the consoles before the current ones were! The only limitations are the development costs and the extended development time. Last but not least, it's dependent on if it even makes sense to have such a vast gameworld. It's an economical decision for the most part. If you are going to create a big map for a videogame, then it's not only like you are creating a big map, and invest time and money into it and that's it. It's heavily dependent on what kind of game it is. Since this is a GTA forum, I will use GTA as example.

 

Rockstar stated ever since November 2011 that GTAV is the biggest game they have ever created, and according to Aaron Garbut's statement in the Game Informer cover-story, the game is bigger than IV, San Andreas and Red Read Redemption combined. What do they have to do to make that possible? I would say quite a few things actually. If you consider the attention to detail that Rockstar usually puts into their games, then you will realize how much work it exactly is. Well, a bigger map also means that the amount of vehicles, radio-stations, peds and several other things increases, and the AI is more complexe. Besides that the map is not the most important thing in an openworld game as long as it's decently sized and the details are pretty good.

 

 

And they obviously compare it to an equal Gaming PC. Why would you compare it with a office PC which has no tech for serious gaming at all.

Indeed. If you compare a console with a PC that has the fairly same spefications, then the console would definitely win. That was always the case, that's not something new.

 

 

QUOTE (PS4 System Specifications - http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/sony-de...aguar-cpu-8x-bl)

A press release reveals that the PS4's PC-like configuration will include an 8-core 64-bit x86 "Jaguar" CPU built by AMD, with a Radeon GPU comprised of 18 "compute units" capable of cranking out 1.84 TFLOPS to process graphics and more. Its Blu-ray drive -- yes, it will still have one of those -- spins at a brisk 6X (8X for DVDs) and as mentioned on stage, it packs 8GB of unified GDDR5 RAM capable of 176GB/sec of bandwidth. 802.11n WiFi, USB 3.0, Bluetooth 2.1, HDMI, optical out and even a legacy analog AV out make up the inputs and outputs, although the potential amounts of storage are still unspecified. • AMD Jaguar Octa-Core x64 CPU @ 1.6GHz -- next-gen counterpart of Intel Atom CPUs. • AMD Radeon GCN with 18 Compute Units and ~1.84TFOPS -- performance is between HD7850 and HD7870; persumably rather the former one. • 8GB GDDR5 RAM -- instead of system RAM and VRAM, there is only this. That allows the system to communicate much faster. Not to mention the fact that GDDR5 RAM is far superior compared to DDR3.     QUOTE (Xbox One System Specifications - http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive...stem-specs.aspx) As you can see from the screengrab above, the system includes 8GB of system memory, a Blu-ray drive, and an 8-core CPU. Unlike the Xbox 360, which shipped in several different hardware configurations, the Xbox One includes Kinect and a 500GB hard drive by default. The console also has multiple 802.11n radios and an Gigabit Ethernet port. • AMD Jaguar Octa-Core x86 CPU @ 1.6GHz -- same as for the PS4 CPU. • AMD Radeon GCN with 12 Compute Units and [presumably] ~1.2TFLOPS -- performance is similar to HD7790, which makes it slower than the PS4 GPU. • 8GB DDR3 RAM and 32MB ESRAM -- same as the RAM of the PS4 with the difference that it's DDR3 RAM, which is clearly inferior compared to GDDR5 RAM. I'm not sure how beneficial ESRAM is; I'll have to do some research.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[iNero]

SRAM is a pretty good thing. It can close the gap between PS4 slight a bit in that aspect. But PS4 still has the advantage. SRAM is pretty expansive

[Tchuck]

So which one of you has any real experience developing for consoles or PC?

 

The thing with consoles is that at launch, noone will know how to proper develop for them, as the architecture always changes. It takes a couple titles before the developer is more accustomed to it and can properly utilize it's hardware to the max. And then the console is killed to make way for the next console, and the cycle repeats. At launch, they can be more powerful than a PC or whatever, but it won't be making full use of those capabilities for a long time, and by the time they do you will already have much more powerful computers. But it's more convenient, since you'll have an architecture and power that won't change too much over its lifetime, allowing you to become better at working on it.

 

The thing with pcs is that due to their highly customizable nature, it takes a lot of extra effort to make sure it runs decently on a vast combination of hardware, screens, input devices. Or you can go the other way and just develop for the very high end, but that's usually not super commercially viable, but very nice for research and development. It will always "fall behind" the consoles, then overtake them, in hardware power (which is what this topic is about), not long afterwards. But it's not so convenient, with hardware changing and operating systems and all that, but it will always be improving the limits of what can be done, and faster, and you have far more resources, documentation and middleware/software wise, that you can access for help. Have you ever looked at the documentation for devkits? It's a lot of discovery in there. Try figuring out errors without access to google or people who have encountered those errors before.

 

tl;dr Consoles take time to fully achieve their proper hardware utilization, but are convenient in that the specs won't change, whereas PCs are always improving and getting better/more powerful, but are not so convenient cause you have an almost endless combination of hardware that you have to prepare for.

[iNero]

And thats the point. These consoles can do way more than people think. Noone said that they will be ahead of the PC for more than 1-2 years because of your given reasons.

This thread is to show that its not just a cheaper mid range PC which is already way behind the PC if it comes to the output, at release.

 

The fact that we have games like Uncharted or Halo4 simply shows what they are able to do with 8 year old hardware. ( ofcourse it did not look like this on day one, but thats not the point)

[DODI3OG]

The details of videogames will obviously increase with the start of the new console cycle but I wouldn't expect significantly bigger maps. That is a fallacy, and a lot of people think that way for whatever reason. The map size is not limited by the hardware. In fact, the current consoles are very well capable of huge maps, even the consoles before the current ones were! The only limitations are the development costs and the extended development time. Last but not least, it's dependent on if it even makes sense to have such a vast gameworld. It's an economical decision for the most part. If you are going to create a big map for a videogame, then it's not only like you are creating a big map, and invest time and money into it and that's it. It's heavily dependent on what kind of game it is. Since this is a GTA forum, I will use GTA as example.

 

Rockstar stated ever since November 2011 that GTAV is the biggest game they have ever created, and according to Aaron Garbut's statement in the Game Informer cover-story, the game is bigger than IV, San Andreas and Red Read Redemption combined. What do they have to do to make that possible? I would say quite a few things actually. If you consider the attention to detail that Rockstar usually puts into their games, then you will realize how much work it exactly is. Well, a bigger map also means that the amount of vehicles, radio-stations, peds and several other things increases, and the AI is more complexe. Besides that the map is not the most important thing in an openworld game as long as it's decently sized and the details are pretty good.

Well, I guess you're wrong on some parts, though.

The map size is dependent on the hardware, too.

 

If Rockstar is going to make their largest map ever, it's definitely their call.

But on the hardware part, sure, every console can generate gargantuan maps.

But most of those maps lacked detail. Take FUEL and JC2 for example.

 

What I'm saying is that next gen will surely allow developers to make maps w/o significant compensations at all.

Like putting a lot of details on a gargantuan map w/ a very far detail/draw distance, for example.

 

Sure, R* can make gargantuan maps as long as they want to but, it always had consequences. Sure, GTA V has a very far draw-distance but, the details; like vehicles, Garbages, etc. don't spawn that far. That shows how R* compensates for map size.

 

With only 500mb of RAM, we can't put a gargantuan map and a lot of details visible on one scene together w/o constant loading whenever you go to another Area of the map.

 

With 14x more RAM, some developers can surely create much more w/o any compensation.

[Andreas]

It's a question of whether it makes even sense to have a vast environment in a videogame and what genre the game belongs to. Games that release at the end of the console cycle use the full capabilities of the consoles. You can have a huge map and good details simultaneously, because you can use the draw distance to limit the area that is rendered on-screen. Even with the technical improvements and even if developers get used with the programming as time goes, there will be always limitations but you know how you have to deal with them. With the release of the new consoles, we can expect significant graphical improvements but also, huge progress with the physics of future games. There is room for improvement in all areas so the question would how much room would be left for bigger maps and so the increasing amount of vehicles, peds, et cetera.

 

You can see all that as some sort of system where everything has to match. If you change anything, for instance you begin to create bigger maps for your games, then everything has to become bigger as well, so to speak. Not literally but you see what's going on with games like Just Cause 2; the map is absolutely gigantic but it lacks details and seems to be lifeless, somehow. Not a surprise though, imagine how long it would take to create a map of such a scale that does not lack details. Oh well, I suppose we will have to wait and see what happens. After all, it still takes half a year until the release of the new Microsoft and Sony systems and we don't know yet what route the videogame industry will go.

[NYC PATROL]

 

It's a question of whether it makes even sense to have a vast environment in a videogame and what genre the game belongs to. Games that release at the end of the console cycle use the full capabilities of the consoles. You can have a huge map and good details simultaneously, because you can use the draw distance to limit the area that is rendered on-screen. Even with the technical improvements and even if developers get used with the programming as time goes, there will be always limitations but you know how you have to deal with them. With the release of the new consoles, we can expect significant graphical improvements but also, huge progress with the physics of future games. There is room for improvement in all areas so the question would how much room would be left for bigger maps and so the increasing amount of vehicles, peds, et cetera.

 

You can see all that as some sort of system where everything has to match. If you change anything, for instance you begin to create bigger maps for your games, then everything has to become bigger as well, so to speak. Not literally but you see what's going on with games like Just Cause 2; the map is absolutely gigantic but it lacks details and seems to be lifeless, somehow. Not a surprise though, imagine how long it would take to create a map of such a scale that does not lack details. Oh well, I suppose we will have to wait and see what happens. After all, it still takes half a year until the release of the new Microsoft and Sony systems and we don't know yet what route the videogame industry will go.

Great points. Just trying to imagine Rockstar making GTA 6 for PS4/XB1. I'm so

optimistic for this gen. Rockstar is lucky they have so many people to help make games

BUT look at GTA V. It's a current gen game and has over 400 something people working on it yet

it has taken 5 years for it to come out. Imagine the next one. Bigger map? More features? More

objects on screen? Games on the PS4/XB1 won't be limited so much by tech but by how many

man hours can be put forth towards a game. Like you said, the details....

[DODI3OG]

 

use the draw distance to limit the area that is rendered on-screen.

I know. But the "base/LOD" model will have to be loaded first, right?

If the map has a lot of scenery on it; like a mountain for example, then those mountains will have to be loaded first so It won't "magically" appear out of nowhere. The details are then spawned as far as the draw distance goes.

Of course, the RAM can't save all of those LODs at once, if it's a gargantuan map. So, reducing the draw distance helps.

 

That's an example of what I was pointing out. Compensations. I was hoping for lesser compensations next-gen.

 

If R* is going to make a 500miles(2) HD map; w/c is a single island, then they have to lower the draw distance and limit it to storing 400MB+ of RAM so it wont lag. That's another example.

 

I was trying to visualize a scenario w/c the Draw distance was significantly farther and The details on screen are significantly more.

 

GTA V could even have a MUCH better graphics, but why can't it achieve so? Because it has LOTS OF OBJECTS spawned on one area that the GFX card can't shade, soften the edges, enlighten all at once. That's ANOTHER example of compensation.

 

What I was pointing out wasn't about other developers at all. I was pointing out the possibilities of Rockstar making a gigantic map.

Edited June 2, 2013 by DODI3OG

[Braindawg]

How PS4 Could Overpower a More Powerful PC

 

I lold

[iNero]

They said cloud computing could be used for open world games to render the map and NPCs. Digital foundry did denie the claims of MS for Cloud Comluting pretty quickly and called it PR to compensate the lack of power compared to the PS4 in the media.

But the one use they mentioned were open world games and Sony can introduce a similar feature if MS has success with it.

[friendly luggage]

They said cloud computing could be used for open world games to render the map and NPCs. Digital foundry did denie the claims of MS for Cloud Comluting pretty quickly and called it PR to compensate the lack of power compared to the PS4 in the media.

But the one use they mentioned were open world games and Sony can introduce a similar feature if MS has success with it.

There would be latency issues if graphics were rendered on the cloud. I assume this cloud thing is bullsh*t and I don't like the idea personally myself. I prefer to keep things local and not dependent on the internet. These powerful cloud servers would be good for hosting games and controlling AI. They could even control the advanced fish AI in Call of Duty MP.

[iNero]

They said cloud computing could be used for open world games to render the map and NPCs. Digital foundry did denie the claims of MS for Cloud Comluting pretty quickly and called it PR to compensate the lack of power compared to the PS4 in the media.

But the one use they mentioned were open world games and Sony can introduce a similar feature if MS has success with it.

There would be latency issues if graphics were rendered on the cloud. I assume this cloud thing is bullsh*t and I don't like the idea personally myself. I prefer to keep things local and not dependent on the internet. These powerful cloud servers would be good for hosting games and controlling AI. They could even control the advanced fish AI in Call of Duty MP.

No. They gave this argument for other Parts of the game. But for Open world Maps it works. Thats what they said. Reason is that the Map doesnt has to be rendered every frame. So with the cloud you can render the world and it gets refreshed when its needed. But that was almost the only use for it.

For other tasks, even fiber-optic would be way too slow. Plus the latency which would cause alot of issues

[friendly luggage]

It's not going to work. Games require instant reactions and even having just 50ms delay would hold you back in most games. These servers should be put to good use by hosting game lobbies. I'm fed up with having crap connection in games because it's hosted locally on someones console who usually have a rubbish connection and YouTube running at the same time.

[iNero]

This possibility of Cloud Computing is possible as it doesnt require a low latency ( compared) cause it doesnt has to render every frame again. Things like fog, smoke , lights, are something that can be rendered in the cloud cause its hasnt to be rendered frame by frame. But for only these small things it isnt worth implementing it for a shooter or something like that. In an open world game it could make sense which is stated in the folowing quote.

I guess Digital Foundry has more knowledge than you and me about that:

 

 

Another known possibility for cloud computing is AI, not for direct interactions such as determining if an NPC should duck or shoot, but for background AI in living worlds like Grand Theft Auto and Elder Scrolls. The complexity of these games has always been limited to the console's resources, and AI has often been very limited to simple behaviour routines. Cloud computing could run world simulation and just update the player's local world over time, allowing the world to live and respond to player actions. Such complex game worlds could be a significant advance, but they are also constrained to a limited set of game types. Games like Xbox 360's flagships Gears of War and Forza Motorsport have little need for smart NPC AI of this kind.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalf...ransform-gaming

 

 

 

Issues with other possibilities:

 

 

A request from your console has to find its way through numerous routers and servers until it reaches its destination, and the results have the same labyrinthine journey back. To put this in perspective, when the logic circuits of a CPU want some data, they have to wait a few nanoseconds (billionths of a second) to retrieve it from its cache. If not in cache, the CPU has to wait as much as a few hundred nanoseconds to fetch the data from main RAM - and this is considered bad news for processor efficiency. If the CPU were to ask the cloud to calculate something, the answer won't be available for potentially 100ms or more, depending on internet latency - some 100,000 nanoseconds!

 

 

As a game has only 33 milliseconds to render a frame at 30FPS, such long delays mean the cloud cannot be relied upon for real-time, immediate results per frame. If you crash your Forza car into a wall, you don't want to see your vehicle continuing through to the other side of the scenery for the next three or four frames (even longer on those inevitable internet hiccups) until the physics running on the cloud return with the information that you've crashed.

 

 

This means that whatever cloud computing power is available, consoles will have available to them an average of 1MB/s a second of processed data. If we compare that to the sort of bandwidth consoles are used to, the DDR3 of Xbox One is rated at around 68,000MB/s, and even that wasn't enough for the console and had to be augmented with the ESRAM.

 

The PS4 memory system allocates around 20,000MB/s for the CPU of its total 176,000MB/s. The cloud can provide one twenty-thousandth of the data to the CPU that the PS4's system memory can. You may have an internet connection that's much better than 8mbps of course, but even superfast fibre-optic broadband at 50mbps equates to an anaemic 6MB/s. This represents a significant bottleneck to what can be processed on the cloud, and that's before upload speed is even considered.

 

 

When you play Battlefield 3 on your Xbox 360, do you have the equivalent power of a dozen Xbox 360s because the server is notionally that powerful? Microsoft's claims seem pretty wishy-washy against such a comparison, and without the explicit clarification that they are literally installing four teraflops of server power for each and every Xbox One bought, the claims of that power target can only be considered bogus PR hand-waving to try and detract from the performance deficit with their rival.

 

 

Furthermore, there's the issue of how game developers are supposed to target this cloud experience. What if the internet is not available, or running slowly? Games players may find constant high-use data streaming sees their ISP move them onto slower, less reliable connections. And this doesn't even factor into how bandwidth may be utilised in the home - what happens to your Xbox One cloud title if someone else in the home is streaming Super HD Netflix video?

Edited June 2, 2013 by iNero

[nigelhere9901]

It's a question of whether it makes even sense to have a vast environment in a videogame and what genre the game belongs to. Games that release at the end of the console cycle use the full capabilities of the consoles. You can have a huge map and good details simultaneously, because you can use the draw distance to limit the area that is rendered on-screen. Even with the technical improvements and even if developers get used with the programming as time goes, there will be always limitations but you know how you have to deal with them. With the release of the new consoles, we can expect significant graphical improvements but also, huge progress with the physics of future games. There is room for improvement in all areas so the question would how much room would be left for bigger maps and so the increasing amount of vehicles, peds, et cetera.

 

You can see all that as some sort of system where everything has to match. If you change anything, for instance you begin to create bigger maps for your games, then everything has to become bigger as well, so to speak. Not literally but you see what's going on with games like Just Cause 2; the map is absolutely gigantic but it lacks details and seems to be lifeless, somehow. Not a surprise though, imagine how long it would take to create a map of such a scale that does not lack details. Oh well, I suppose we will have to wait and see what happens. After all, it still takes half a year until the release of the new Microsoft and Sony systems and we don't know yet what route the videogame industry will go.

Here's the thing some people are severely missing out on.

 

Provided that the PS4's hardware is quite easy to develop for, and you don't have bandwidth or RAM issues with this one. You will actually see the full capability of console very soon. In other words, the juice will be extracted faster.

 

You remember how X360 dominated in superior multiplats against the PS3 over the past 6-7 years? That's because it's hardware and graphics pipelines weren't that complex. The Unified Shader Architecture did half the work.

 

And after so many years, you finally see PS3's superior hardware unfolding and expressing it self with superior looking and running exclusives. Not to mention that the recent Metro Last Light game was superior on PS3.

 

For complex hardware, it actually takes some time to extract the juice out. In contrast, for facile hardware it doesn't actually take that much time.

[goh13]

PC would always be more powerful. They ONLY reason it is not as pretty is because the games are ported from consoles. Even then, the PC still looks AMAZING if you have a good gear.

 

 

Consoles are normal PCs with optimized OS and games.

 

 

This coming from a sony fanboy. I refuse to buy any console that is not made by sony. Unless they use DRM and have an HD spy camera, I am sold already.

[Vercetti42]

If you're going to compare a PC and a console technically, it depends on the type of PC. If you take a PC with similar specs to that of the PS4 and One IMO the console would surely win. However if you take a very very powerful PC with the latest RAM, Processor, Multi graphic card, OS and hard drive, the PC will out perform the console by a long way.

 

However some PC ports are poor(example GTA IV) and at that point even the best PC's ran the game like crap the issues got fixed with the patch though.

 

 

You can see all that as some sort of system where everything has to match. If you change anything, for instance you begin to create bigger maps for your games, then everything has to become bigger as well, so to speak. Not literally but you see what's going on with games like Just Cause 2; the map is absolutely gigantic but it lacks details and seems to be lifeless, somehow. Not a surprise though, imagine how long it would take to create a map of such a scale that does not lack details. Oh well, I suppose we will have to wait and see what happens. After all, it still takes half a year until the release of the new Microsoft and Sony systems and we don't know yet what route the videogame industry will go.

 

 

I agree with the Just Cause 2 part, GTA IV feels big because of the detail that was put into it. Also the size of the maps of GTA games has increased since the console hardware power has increased? I know the official statements say San Andreas was bigger than GTA IV but for me they are both equal because SA lacked the detail whilst IV had detail.

 

GTA III - 3 square miles

GTA Vice City - 3.9 square miles

GTA San Andreas - 13.9 square miles

GTA IV - 6.25 square miles

GTA V - Bigger than the combined size of Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV and San Andreas.

 

When San Andreas was released it had pushed the limits of the PS2 far more than any other PS2, so much that it had the most number of features that were removed from the final version due to limits of the PS2 and at that point it was a mind blowing game and even today it is. Now Rockstar seem to be pushing GTA V both graphically and gameplay wise to the limit on the current-Gen consoles. We'll see how the current-gen consoles handle the huge map, graphics and extensive gameplay features.

 

That being said, the maps of video games will continue to increase as the hardware becomes more powerful and becomes more capable of storing more data easily and handling high end graphics which in turn enables developers to add more features and keep pushing the consoles to it's limits.

[iNero]

Addition to those who think that 1,84 TFlops are too few.

 

 

A GTX295 (in 2009) has about 1,7 TFlops. Its about as powerful as the 4780 ( a little bit more but thats irrelevant here / and I know that Nvidia flops cant really be compared to AMD flops, but thats why I mentioned the 4780))

 

Now the 7850 has about 1,7 TFlops too. Now tell me that the 4780 is as powerfull as a 7850.

 

What that basicly means:

 

TFlops is really not the only indicator of what a GPU can achieve.

Edited June 23, 2013 by iNero

[wwinterj]

PC would always be more powerful.

Anyone with half a brain could tell you this. Arguing this fact is futile.

[nigelhere9901]

Addition to those who think that 1,84 TFlops are too few.

 

 

A GTX295 (in 2009) has about 1,7 TFlops. Its about as powerful as the 4780 ( a little bit more but thats irrelevant here / and I know that Nvidia flops cant really be compared to AMD flops, but thats why I mentioned the 4780))

 

Now the 7850 has about 1,7 TFlops too. Now tell me that the 4780 is as powerfull as a 7850.

 

What that basicly means:

 

TFlops is really not the only indicator of what a GPU can achieve.

1. You're trying to compare the PS4's GPU to previous AMD architectures. FLOPS mean sh*t then.

2. "and I know that Nvidia flops cant really be compared to AMD flops" Actually, they can be compared directly, I think you're just confusing single and double precision FLOPS. As long as both's FLOPS is single precision, they can be compared.

3. At the last line, that is true. FLOPS is nothing without the load/store units, 12 CU with 7770's TMU count would break the current GCN's 16 stream processors to 1 TMU ratio.

[Bad.boy!]

When San Andreas was released it had pushed the limits of the PS2 far more than any other PS2, so much that it had the most number of features that were removed from the final version due to limits of the PS2 and at that point it was a mind blowing game and even today it is. Now Rockstar seem to be pushing GTA V both graphically and gameplay wise to the limit on the current-Gen consoles. We'll see how the current-gen consoles handle the huge map, graphics and extensive gameplay features.

 

That being said, the maps of video games will continue to increase as the hardware becomes more powerful and becomes more capable of storing more data easily and handling high end graphics which in turn enables developers to add more features and keep pushing the consoles to it's limits.

The map size is irrelevant for hardware. Detail and view distance is important. Also I read somewhere that Just Cause 2 wasn't "handmade" a lot of the terrain was computer generated. In GTA the landscape is designed by humans, which is why it has a lot more detail.

[DeafMetal]

I have a feeling the Xbone will lag slightly behind in terms of graphics. Maybe like the original Xbox and the ps2 where the ps2 was significantly weaker.

 

I've always imagined consoles as a Spartan Warrior: an unstoppable killing machine of an ancient era, and PCs as modern-day Army soldiers: versatile, and while they would lose to the Spartan given the same equipment, they can outclass him easily given the right technology (e.g., an assault rifle). I don't think the consoles will look better than gaming PCs in general right out of the gate; I think when Naughty Dog releases Uncharted 4 or whatever, it'll outclass 99% of unmodded games on any system. Then maybe two or at most three years in, PC games will make that game look bland.